Elige el tipo de letra:
 Arimo
 Merriweather
 Mukta Malar
 Open Sans Condensed
 Rokkitt
 Source Sans Pro
 Login


 Español 
 Français 
 English 
 Português 

[Valid RSS] RSS
bar

Base de datos - (CIANE)

Presentación de esta base de datos documental (Sitio web de CIANE)
Actualmente 3111 registros
Canal de YouTube (tutorial)

https://ciane.net/id=835

Creado el : 08 Jul 2004
Alterado em : 02 Dec 2007

 Editar este registro
¡Sólo siga este enlace si tiene una contraseña de editor!


Compartir : Facebook logo   Tweeter logo   Todos los públicos

Ficha bibliográfica (sin autores) :

Elective cesarean section. Letters. Canadian Medical Association Journal 2004;171(1):15.

Autores :

Hanah ME.

Año de publicación :

2004

URL(s) :

http://www.cmaj.ca/cgi/content/full/171/1/15-a?eto…

Résumé (français)  :

Abstract (English)  :

Although generalizing evidence for planned cesarean from one indication to another is problematic, we do this when evidence is lacking. For example, some use the results of the Term Breech Trial, which found better outcomes with planned cesarean for singleton breech fetuses at term, to justify planned cesarean section for twins if one of the twins is in breech position.1 Contrary to the suggestion of John Fernandes, the issue is not consumerism, cost or cosmetic surgery; rather, it is a woman’s choice after discussion of the risks and benefits of all reasonable alternatives.2

Padmanabhan Badrinath and Penny Lindballe agree that a woman should be able to choose how she will deliver her baby. Badrinath raises concerns that planned cesarean sections will add to the cost of health care. However, planned cesareans may actually be associated with lower costs.3 Lindballe suggests that women should be able to choose midwifery care and that health care plans should cover this option too. I agree. Planning for a vaginal birth might be a more attractive option for Canadian women if midwifery care were more readily available and affordable.

Planned cesarean and planned vaginal birth are not associated with equivalent outcomes, and most women are likely to place a higher value on the benefits of planning a vaginal birth than on the risks. However, my plea is that we also respect and honour the views of the women who place a higher value on the risks, preferring instead to plan a cesarean procedure. I agree with Michael Klein that most of the research concerning risk of urinary incontinence has examined such risks over the short term and that an elective planned cesarean does not prevent all incontinence. However, overall, the current evidence indicates that elective cesarean is associated with a lower risk of incontinence than vaginal delivery. Klein infers that the benefits of interventions during labour and delivery, such as induction, are not sufficiently adequate to justify their widespread use. Surely this is a judgement for the woman and her physician or midwife to make. Also, research suggests that most women are extremely "fetal risk averse" and would choose cesarean section if this could prevent even a very small increased risk of stillbirth or neonatal death.4 I find it surprising that Klein estimates it would take up to an hour to inform a woman about her options for delivery. However, if this is true, consideration should be given to developing a patient information sheet detailing the options, along with their risks and benefits.

Selon Catherine Gerbelli, l’accouchement vaginal spontané à la maison serait peut-être plus physiologique que l’accouchement vaginal spontané à l’hôpital. J’en conviens, il faudrait signaler cet avantage éventuel, en même temps que les risques éventuels, aux femmes qui envisagent d’accoucher à la maison.

It is quite likely that only a small minority of women will choose a planned cesarean, but those who do so make the choice for reasons that are important to them. According to them, the opportunity to exercise that choice is consistent with the ethical principle of patient autonomy, which has largely replaced the paternalism so long associated with the provision of obstetric care.

Sumário (português)  :

Resumen (español)  :

Comentarios :

Argument (français) :

Argument (English):

Argumento (português):

Argumento (español):

Palabras claves :

➡ cesárea ; medicina basada en la evidencia ; ética ; ética profesional ; consentimiento informado ; inducción del parto ; exceder el término

Autor de este registro :

Cécile Loup — 08 Jul 2004
➡ última modificación : Bernard Bel — 02 Dec 2007

Debate (mostrar sólo español)
 
➡ Sólo para usuarios identificados



 He leído la política de debate y acepto las condiciones (ver la constitución)

barre

Realizar otra consulta de expertos --- Realice otra consulta sencilla

Creación de un registro --- Importación de registros

Gestión de usuarios --- Salvaguardar la base de datos --- Contacto

bar

Esta base de datos creada por la Alliance francophone pour l'accouchement respecté (AFAR) está gestionada
por el Collectif interassociatif autour de la naissance (CIANE, https://ciane.net).
Se nutre de las contribuciones de voluntarios interesados en compartir información científica.
Si está de acuerdo con este proyecto, puede ayudarnos de varias maneras:
(1) convertirse en colaborador de esta base de datos, si tiene alguna experiencia en documentación
(2) ou apoio financeiro CIANE (veja abaixo)
(3) o hacerse miembro de otra asociación afiliada al CIANE.
Inicie sesión o cree una cuenta para seguir los cambios o convertirse en editor.
Contacta con bibli(arobase)ciane.net para más información.

Valid CSS! Valid HTML!
Donar a CIANE (haga clic en 'Faire un don') nos ayudará a mantener y desarrollar
sitios y bases de datos públicas para apoyar las decisiones informadas de los progenitores
y profesionales de la salud con respecto al parto